Quick presidential observation

I just heard an interview of Hillary Clinton on VPR a couple of minutes ago, and the interviewer was pushing her on whether she's okay with winning with superdelegate votes even if she loses the popular vote. (By the way, I'm okay with it--we knew the rules going in, and I think there are good reasons for the superdelegate system.)

What I thought was interesting was the way she seems to be trying out a new line on why she should win. Even if she doesn't get the popular vote in all the primaries combined, we should look at states where the Democratic candidate can win. She said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that we're not going to win Alaska, or Utah, or South Dakota anyway (states that Obama won) but we can, and we need to, win states like Michigan and Florida. The implication was that they should count more in deciding who the nominee should be.

Of course, they do, because they have more delegates. Still, she seemed to be saying more, like maybe discounting the results of even big states if we are pretty sure they are going to go for McCain.

Maybe this isn't so much about Alaska and Utah as it is about the fact that we now know that she also lost Texas, but it seems to demonstrate a certain level of desperation on her part, leading to another in the shifting rationales for her candidacy.